GM Styles, Collaborative vs. "Benelovent Dictator" Options

[Cain]

Doc asked someone to move this to its own thread, so here we go.

I'm going to open this with the same controversial comment that started this whole mess:

THE GM IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PLAYERS!!

The GM is just another player. He had added responsibility, but he ultimately doesn't have any more authority than the other players. If there's a conflict between the GM and a player, he shouldn't be: "I'm god, what I say goes!" Instead, he should be seeking group consensus; and if the consensus goes against him, the GM should bow gracefully to the will of the group, just like any other player.

The GM does not need to be the final rules arbiter. In fact, sometimes it's better when he isn't. Not everyone can memorize rulebooks. Most people just skim through the sections that pertain to their character. It takes a dedicated sort to fully absorb a ruleset, and that skill is really quite low among the qualities that make up a good GM. Being able to create fun, collaborative stories is #1. I'd rather have a GM who can tell good stories but can't remember rules, than one who can quote chapter and verse, but can't tell a good story.

Now, for those of you who claim that the benevolent dictator style works for them-- have you tried a more collaborative game before? Something like Wushu, which gives many of the traditional GM roles to the players; or Capes, which requires no GM at all. Heck, what about more traditional games with "Drama Points", such as Unisystem? They may not work for everyone, but how can you say it won't work for you if you don't try it?